#it is so morally ethically and economically harmful

[mothman-loves-ghost]

Hey guys just a little note: if you use AI art in any way shape or form, you can go ahead and block me. And if I see anyone I interact with using it, I'll block them immediately as well, there's no reason you should have to steal our jobs just because you "wanted art"... that's why we are here. That's why artists exist. There are countless artists who would die to get commissioned (me included) by ANYONE. But you have to go and show your fucking GREED by stealing our work. It is STEALING. by using AI generated images as a replacement for art you are putting artists as a whole at risk. I'm disappointed in some of the fandoms I'm in because of this. I thought we were better than that.

TLDR:

DNI if you use AI generated images

[ldknightshade]

morality: a character creation guide

creating and understanding your oc’s personal moral code! no, i cannot tell you whether they’re gonna come out good or bad or grey; that part is up to you.

anyway, let’s rock.

i. politics

politics are a good way to indicate things your character values, especially when it comes to large-scale concepts such as government, community, and humanity as a whole.

say what you will about either image; i’d argue for the unintiated, the right image is a good introduction to some lesser discussed ideologies… some of which your oc may or may not fall under.

either way, taking a good look at your character’s values on the economic + social side of things is a good place to start, as politics are something that, well… we all have ‘em, you can’t avoid ‘em.

clearly, this will have to be adjusted for settings that utilize other schools of thought (such as fantasy + historical fiction and the divine right of kings), but again, economic/social scale plotting will be a good start for most.

ii. religion + philosophy

is your oc religious? do they believe in a form of higher power? do they follow some sort of philosophy?

are they devout? yes, this applies to non-religious theist and atheist characters as well; in the former’s case… is their belief in a higher power something that guides many of their actions or is their belief in a higher power something that only informs a few of their actions? for the atheists; do they militant anti-theists who believe atheism is the only way and that religion is harmful? or do they not care about religion, so long as it’s thrust upon them?

for the religious: what is your oc’s relationship with the higher power in question? are they very progressive by their religion’s standards or more orthodox? how well informed of their own religion are they?

does your oc follow a particular school of philosophical thought? how does that interact with their religious identification?

iii. values

by taking their political stance and their religious + philosophical stance, you have a fairly good grasp on the things your character values.

is there anything they value - due to backstory, or what they do, or what they love - that isn’t explained by political stance and religious and/or philosophical identification? some big players here will likely be your oc’s culture and past.

of everything you’ve determined they value, what do they value the most?

iv. “the line”

everyone draws it somewhere. we all have a line we won’t cross, no matter the lengths we go for what we believe is a noble cause. where does your character draw it? how far will they go for something they truly believe is a noble cause? as discussed in part iii of my tips for morally grey characters,

would they lie? cheat? steal? manipulate? maim? what about commit acts of vandalism? arson? would they kill?

but even when we have a line, sometimes we make exceptions for a variety of reasons. additionally, there are limits to some of the lengths we’d go to.

find your character’s line, their limits and their exceptions.

v. objectivism/relativism

objectivism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “an ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.”

relativism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.”

what take on morality, as a concept, does your character have? is morality objective? is morality subjective?

we could really delve deep into this one, but this post is long enough that i don’t think we need to get into philosophical rambling… so this is a good starting point.

either way, exploring morality as a concept and how your character views it will allow for better application of their personal moral code.

vi. application

so, now you know what they believe and have a deep understanding of your character’s moral code, all that’s left is to apply it and understand how it informs their actions while taking their personality into account.

and interesting thing to note is that we are all hypocrites; you don’t have to do this, but it might be fun to play around with the concept of their moral code and add a little bit of hypocrisy to their actions as a treat.

either way, how do your character’s various beliefs interact? how does it make them interact with the world? with others? with their friends, family, and community? with their government? with their employment? with their studies? with the earth and environment itself?

in conclusion:

there’s a lot of things that inform one’s moral compass and i will never be able to touch on them all; however, this should hopefully serve as at least a basic guide.

[howtofightwrite]

re: the question about stunning someone with head trauma (and how you Should Not unless you're okay with them dying) would knocking the wind out of a character be a better way to have that happen?

Yes, but no.

So, knocking the wind out of someone is a lot safer. I wouldn't say perfectly safe, this is how Harry Houdini died, after all. However, it's a lot safer that head wounds, and usually wouldn't result in any major injuries.

The downside is against a trained opponent, who's ready for the hit, it's not going to work. This isn't called a, “sucker punch,” without reason. If your abdominal muscles are tensed for the punch, they will absorb a lot of the blow. So this works better against the unaware or the untrained.

The other problem is, it's not going to take someone out for the duration of the scene. In a self defense situation, winding your attacker is great, because it lets you create an opening to start your escape. But, it's not going to stun someone for minutes. From personal experience, you can measure the time you gain from winding your opponent in seconds.

There are combos that start with winding someone and lead into more painful blows that can extend that opening. But, there is a continuity of force: Incapacitating someone for longer requires inflicting harm that is increasingly difficult (impossible) to moderate.

If the goal is to escape from someone who means you harm, then yeah, an elbow strike to their stomach, will give you the opportunity to get out of there.

If the goal is to have a prolonged conversation while standing over a defeated (but still living foe), that's not really something you can do intentionally. At the same time, intentional application of lethal force isn't as reliable as you might expect. For example, gunshot wounds to the head are only fatal ~98% of the time.

The issue with this train of thought is that the individual inflicting harm cannot moderate for the desired outcome. Knocking someone out, only for them to recover, is 100% possible. However, you can't do that intentionally. And having a character who does bounce another person's head off the pavement until they stop twitching, is an incredibly violent act, and it's not going to be a casual, “well they're just knocked out.” It's a, “Carl, that kills people,” moment.

If you want a character that is disproportionately violent, and probably scares everyone around them a bit, this will feed into that presentation. If you want a character who's a good person because they don't kill people, then attempting to inflict life altering injuries on someone is probably not the best way to demonstrate their ethics.

(Remember, Batman doesn't kill people, he just shatters their spines; leaving them at the mercy of the American health care system. So, the real moral lesson of Batman is that it's better to be psychologically unwell and wealthy, than economically disadvantaged. You can murder half of the city, and he'll gently deposit you in a padded cell that you can escape from whenever you get bored of the place, but if you so much as imply that you'll resort to less than legal means to put food on the table for your starving family, he will end your existence as a vertebrate.)

And, yes, I fully realize that, by the nature of his character, and comics, Batman (like most superhero comics) is poorly suited to discuss the complex factors involved in street level crime. This this is more of a critique on the treatment of “violence is okay, so long as no one ends up in the morgue,” more than a specific character critique.

There's another part to this that worth remembering, and I know I've said this before, but when you're writing, violence offers diminishing returns. Violence releases the tension you've been building. You can think of it like a rubber band gun. Until you pull the trigger, that rubber band is under tension, and the moment you release it, you hit your audience. Now, getting hit a rubber band is a sharp, and somewhat unpleasant experience, but the second time is going to annoy you less than the first, and if you're constantly bombarded with them, you'll quickly become numb to their impacts.

I'm not saying that you can't, or shouldn't, use violence, however as a writer, you are paying a very real cost whenever you use violence to resolve a scene. It's something that you do need to consider carefully. Part of my aversion to questions like this comes from this structural consideration. A lot of writers make the mistake of using non-lethal violence somewhat indiscriminately. This can absolutely harm the credibility of your characters, and your world.

There is absolutely a place for violence in stories, however, this is a tool that is most effective when used sparingly, or deliberately. (This doesn't mean the violence itself needs to be deliberate, just your use of it.)

A lot of the time when someone says, “I want to use violence to temporarily remove a character from the scene,” that's a scenario that will harm your story. There are a lot of ways to remove a character from a scene, and I don't mean, “alternatives to fighting,” like hiding from them or talking them down. The limit here is your creativity, and in a lot of ways, violence is the least interesting way to achieve your goals.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[max1461]

On the diffuse harms point, if you had a button that would take $0.01 from every person in the US and give $2M to one random person in the US, would you press it? how many times?

In abstract thought experiment land I think it would very probably be moral to do this; if it wouldn't, that has more to do with how the million dollars affects the recipient than anything else. Change dollars to utility (or whatever) and I feel pretty confident in saying it would be moral. I am a strong "mildly inconvenience 3^^^3 people in order to save one life"-er. I think the problem with this thought experiment is that in the real world, mildly inconveniencing very large numbers of people has second-order effects that are actually worse than mildly inconvenient, like that thing about how a certain number of people probably die due to the economic inefficiencies caused by the TSA. But if I was a wizard and I could arrange that 3^^^3 people be mildly inconvenienced in a truly second-order-effect-free way in exchange for saving one life, yes I would definitely do it. Would I arrange that 3^^^3 be tortured to save one life? I don't think so, even if the torture was less bad than death. In fact, I probably wouldn't arrange for even 50 people to be tortured to save one life, again even if the torture was less bad than death. I'm not a utilitarian but I'm also not an... ethical maxminner, or whatever. I'm at some difficult to place position in between.

In the real world, I think taking $0.01 from every person in the US and giving $2M to one random person would almost certainly be bad, for various implementation reasons if nothing else.

[librarygoth]

to preface I did enjoy Barbie, and I feel like I need to make that really obvious bc it’s the internet and some feminine presenting cis woman will call me a misogynist bc I’m butch lmfao, but I think the movie’s core messages are weakened by the way it handles manhood, masculinity, and queerness. Forgive the typos—I’m probably not gonna read this back:

In Barbie world, there is no room for meaningful gender variance. All gendering is idealized gender, with only feminine presenting women and masculine presenting men fitting into the paradigm—queerly gendered figures like Allen, Weird Barbie, Earring Magic Ken, and Sugar’s Daddy Ken are largely excluded from Barbie world society, both under the Barbies’ matriarchy and the Kens’ patriarchy, are regulated to the fringes and are either ridiculed or ignored. Allen, arguably the closest of these queerly gendered figures to the Ken’s idealized masculinity because his queerness is quieter but ultimately present, finds that under the Barbies’ supposedly utopian matriarchy, he is tolerated but not accepted, and that in the Kens’ patriarchy, he is fully terrified for his life.

Stereotypical Barbie’s narrative arc is a queerly gendered one, hinted at by everything from the Indigo Girls to her inability to fit in with the other Barbies. Ultimately, the movie wants us to understand that idealized expectations of gender are harmful, but simultaneously doesn’t provide any real source of liberation for its queerly gendered characters other than escaping their society for another one. The only reason the queerly gendered Weird Barbie is offered a cabinet position at the end is because she is a woman in a matriarchal society, and because the other Barbies feel guilt at not accepting her—but their feelings about her don’t change. They still think she’s not like them.

On the front of manhood and masculinity, something the movie glosses over is that before the Kens are introduced to the concept of patriarchy, they are marginalized people in the Barbie World society. They have no political, social, or economic power, and during the course of the movie it’s even revealed that they not only don’t have homes, but that the Barbies don’t even care enough to know that they don’t have homes. When the Kens discover patriarchy, their enthusiasm isn’t because they inherently think men deserve to rule the world, but because they were exposed, for the first time, to a system where they had power, and they decided they were sick of being subjected. But this point is undermined by a subtle through line of biological essentialism; early on, we see two Kens ready to fight over Stereotypical Barbie’s affections, suggesting that even here, men are inherently more prone to violence. And the society built in Barbie world is a society in which women are naturally intelligent and capable leaders, and where men are vapid and stupid. Interests and activities viewed as classically masculine are dismissed as frivolous and goofy—even ones without any moral or ethical association.

The only men who are exempt are those with queer genders, and even then, this ignores the well-documented misogyny many cis gay men express, and still positions them outside of society without any greener grass in sight. And in Barbie world, queerness for men equates femininity (just as Weird Barbie’s queerness is something more masculine than the other Barbies, even if not masculinity proper), which implied that masculinity, not manhood, is actually the crime, and that manhood and masculinity are inextricably linked (again, Weird Barbie isn’t masculine, per se. She just isn’t feminine).

So while the movie’s message seems to be rooted in the idea that idealized femininity and idealized masculinity are harmful, it seems to also believe that masculinity and manhood are bad, and femininity and womanhood are good, but only if performed in the right way. We are supposed to understand that even if Stereotypical Barbie needs to leave to truly understand herself, the other Barbies have concrete senses of self and purpose, and that even if idealized gender expectations are harmful, Barbie world is better when ruled by the femininity—even that under feminine rule, it’s a utopia. But it’s still a world where queer expressions of gender and sexuality don’t have the opportunity to exist (Barbies only date Kens after all, no matter how many young sapphics made their Barbies scissor). Weird Barbie is specifically an interesting representation of queerness—it is only masculine girls (masculine in this context just means sapphic; sapphicness is a divergence from femininity in any society that values idealized femininity above all other forms), who are believed to have destroyed their Barbies as children. It’s often a point of pride among women who “aren’t like the other girls,” or those who like to feel different. Of course the reality is different—I’m a butch who never destroyed my Barbies; I just made them help my Power Rangers save the day. But the discrepancy between Weird Barbie (who is queer coded in a way straight audiences will likely understand) and Stereotypical Barbie (who is queercoded in a way likely only more accessible to queers, but specifically lesbians, who isn’t attracted to any of the Kens who want her but can’t figure out why), is stark. Stereotypical Barbie isn’t cast out of society because she is still performing a degree of acceptable femininity, and has the privilege choosing to leave. Weird Barbie, on the other hand, is forced to the fringes of society because she is visibly queer.

It’s fascinating to me that feminine presenting cis women (or those like AFAB she/theys who may not be cis but essentially move through the world as if they are feminine presenting cis women), have universally labeled the Barbie movie “for the girls,” when in reality, it feels to me more of a movie for those who fail to perform gender correctly. But I understand why, because the movie still, loudly and clearly, sends the message that femininity is good, and masculinity is bad—and of course the people most harmed by this message, which is oh so prevalent in leftist spaces, queer spaces, feminist spaces, are trans fems (bc transmisogyny), trans mascs, butches, studs, people whose masculinity is racialized, and people who experience marginalized masculinities.

[37q]

i think maybe im just tunnel visioned on it but with all the in-community sexual morality shit going on online rn ive noticed an uptick in young people with little community irl asking more and more neurotic questions to quell their general sense of distress over potential sexual harm.

and when i say young people i mean shit sometimes these people have been working adults for a few years now and although they can handle overall employee relations they have an preoccupation with the "personal" of it all. one time i talked to a 24 year old public school teacher who was scared of "feeding the male gaze" by wearing daisy dukes because of its association with online pedo culture. a natural conclusion to draw.

i cant imagine being a blossoming gay kid during another wave of "grooming" panics, having to figure myself out while my whole social net is caught up in sexual ethics. and while the covid pandemic hasnt been largely attributed to gay people like during one of our more recent grooming panics, it did have the unique impacts of (a) traumatic isolation, especially during development years and (b) a deep seated anxiety with the public.

friends fell out of touch, lovers fought but were stuck together, family died, new and continued in-person connections halted, people lost their jobs and their insurance and went bankrupt, labor and profit were prioritized over the self, a dissociation from grief and and detachment from loss permeated the mass consciousness at the growing death counts. and now the private-state propaganda apparatus has been tried and tested, from the mythical "end" of the covid pandemic by suppressed coverage and data collection all the way to the injustice of amber heard.

gay kids are at their healthiest when they have supportive intergenerational gay acquaintances, and isolation is one of the primary causes of lgbt mental health institutionalizations in the us. but for a while people were only socializing in a milieu that centers hegemonic cultural standards due to its privatized moderation schemes. in times of economic distress in capitalist societies, reactionism and class division reigns supreme and so the panopticon of sexual fears satisfies its role in culturally enforcing class power, instilled in the psyche of those most vulnerable to sexual violence.

[literatureloverx]

Hello dear Snow, ‎♡‧₊˚

I’m sending you warm vibes and good thoughts—I hope you’re hydrating and eating well! Actually, what’s the best dish you’ve had this week? ^^

I’ve been reflecting on something we talked about a few days ago, and it brought me back to this quote I’d love to hear your thoughts on:

"The way women are treated is a direct reflection of a country’s overall social and political health.”

I tend to overanalyze and dive deeply into surface-level things as well, which sometimes makes people look at me funny. So, I’ve learned to be more vague about what’s going on in my head. But when you mentioned overthinking, it struck me—it’s not your thoughts that are the problem, but how they’re received. Society often makes us feel small for having deeper, more abstract thoughts, and that’s something I truly loathe.

In real life, the pool of people who want to sit down and think deeply about things like this is small. That’s why I love the internet—it lets us connect with people who want to engage with the ideas (and nonsense) we share.

I rambled a bit—oopsy! But here’s my (somewhat concise) take on that quote:

Women exist at the intersection of economic, political, familial, and cultural structures—when these systems rely on oppression or control, they expose a nation’s fragility and injustice, and this isn’t just a gender issue; it’s about authority, ethics, and human dignity. A country oppressing women tends to oppress other marginalized minorities as well, thus exposing a deep flaw in moral behavior.

We see that history offers clear evidence of this connection: The Taliban's prohibition on the education of women and fundamental rights caused Afghanistan's economy to weaken, coupled with the nation suffering from severe worldwide isolation. Empowerment of educated women is central to economic growth, while their suppression caused massive poverty. Likewise, Iran's Islamic Revolution severely restricted women's rights, which caused a massive exodus of professional experts, economic stagnation, and massive social unrest. In both instances, gender oppression reflected wider national unrest.

In opposition, we see countries that prioritize gender equality—such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland—illustrate the benefits of inclusion. Their policies of paid parental leave, equal pay for equal work laws, and increased political representation for women have been instrumental in achieving some of the world's highest standards of living. These governments understand that women's success is inextricably linked with society's collective progress.

Withholding education, autonomy, and decision-making from women doesn't harm just them—it holds back the progress of a nation. The true strength of a nation isn't in its wealth or weaponry but in how it treats the most vulnerable in its midst. Women are the "canaries in the coal mine," and they show whether a nation is built on justice and progress or on domination and decay.

I’d love to hear your thoughts dear Snow, however much or little you feel like sharing.

Wishing you a lovely day! ⸜(｡˃ ᵕ ˂ )⸝♡

Cheshka, my love.♥️ I am so sorry it took me so long to respond to this.😭

Thank you for the warm vibes and thoughts, my dear. I am truly in desperate need of them. I swear, I have never been this occupied and stressed in my entire life before—these past two weeks were hellish. I cannot wait for this week to pass so I can finally relax again. I may or may not be planning to draw myself a bubble bath once I am done with everything, haha.♥️

As for the best dish I have had… when I first read your message, my answer was quite literally none. But guess what? That has changed now. I am not sure if you are familiar with Borek, though I assume you might be because of your heritage? I cannot say for sure, but anyway… I tried making it from scratch about a year ago, and no matter what I did, the dough never turned out the way I wanted it to. I had two mental breakdowns over it (at least it still tasted good, haha). But recently, I found a simple recipe that uses lasagne sheets as a “fake dough,” and it made the entire process a hundred times easier. I made it, and I was in literal heaven.🫠

You must know, I am someone who eats very little and has no big appetite in general. I can skip meals and not even feel hungry afterwards. But that Borek? I stuffed myself full with it, haha. (Of course, I still looked very ladylike while doing so—do not even think otherwise—). Anyway, that was an unnecessary ramble about the best dish I had this week. It was Borek. What about you, my dear?♥️

Before I get to the main point of your ask, let me indulge in a little more rambling, haha. I simply need to catch up, and I feel like this cute encounter I had is at least distantly related to the topic (or not at all, haha).

So, I had another doctor’s appointment (yes, again… they make me want to cast myself off a cliff at this point. I am so done with them). While waiting, there was a cute little family in the room with me—a girl, maybe 13 or 14 years old, with her mother and father. She was very bubbly, and I already found her adorable; she seemed quite intelligent as well.

I was reading something on my phone while waiting, and she was chatting in my mother tongue. I do not think they realised I could understand them. Then suddenly, there was a pause in their conversation. I looked up, and the girl was staring at me. I smiled without thinking much of it, and then she said—“This girl is so beautiful.”

When I tell you this sent my ego to unbelievable heights… Being perceived as beautiful when I was corpse-like, makeup-free, and utterly exhausted? Haha. Both her parents smiled at me very sweetly too, which is why I did not acknowledge her compliment—I did not want her to feel embarrassed about it. But is that not just the cutest thing? I want to bite her cheeks.😭

*coughs* Now, I am ready to discuss the more important topic.

I can relate to the funny looks you get. It used to happen to me often as well, until I started strategising before expressing myself—deciding whether a topic was even worth discussing with certain people. Not everyone is interested in everything, and I think that is fine. I am not particularly judgemental about it (or about anything), but I do agree that it would be better if people cared more about such matters. And you are absolutely right—people tend to disregard anything they do not understand.

That said, I do not find it as frustrating anymore as I did a few years ago. I suppose I have learned to accept it as it is. If someone does not understand, I simply share my thoughts with “my people” and no one else.

I also agree with your take on the internet. I am just glad I have my little circle of children to share my nonsense with, haha.♥️ I do not mind your rambling—I have, without a doubt, rambled four times more than you.🥹

Regarding your explanation about the treatment of women—I absolutely agree. I might have worded it slightly differently, but the core idea remains the same, so there is not much to add.

Societies that oppress women are, by their very nature, obscurantist societies—ones that resist progress, suppress knowledge, and reject critical thought. Obscurantism is characterised by a deliberate effort to keep people, particularly certain groups, in ignorance and subjugation, preventing them from questioning authority or seeking advancement.

A society that limits women’s freedoms, education, and opportunities is ultimately restricting half of its population from contributing to its intellectual, economic, and cultural development. This is not merely a moral or ethical failure; it is a structural weakness. Obscurantist societies operate on dogma rather than reason, and dogma does not foster innovation, resilience, or long-term stability.

Because obscurantists lack critical thinking and insight, they are incapable of constructing truly strong and enduring structures—whether political, economic, or social. Any progress they make is either built on weak foundations or is unsustainable, as it is based on suppression rather than organic growth and adaptation. Over time, the weight of their own stagnation causes their systems to crumble. Civilisations that fail to embrace knowledge, inclusion, and progress inevitably fall behind those that do, often collapsing under the pressure of their own inefficiency, corruption, and inability to adapt to changing times.

Thus, the oppression of women is not just a symptom of obscurantism but a fundamental cause of societal decline. A society that refuses to empower all of its members, regardless of gender, is a society doomed to weaken and eventually collapse.

Of course, there are many other factors at play, but if we were to focus solely on the role of women’s empowerment, this would be my perspective. As you can see, our views are nearly identical, Cheshka.♥️

I wish you a lovely day as well, my dear! ♥️

[dailyanarchistposts]

III

The individualist-anarchist makes “propaganda” in order to highlight individualist-anarchist dispositions which have been ignore, or at the very least to bring about an intellectual atmosphere favorable to their appearance. Between individualist-anarchists relations are established on the basis of “reciprocity.” “Camaraderie” is essentially of the individual order[ it is never imposed. Those “comrade” whom it pleases him to associate with, will be those who make an appreciable effort to feel life in themselves, who share in his propaganda of educational critique and his choice of persons; who respect the mode of existence of each individual, and do not interfere with the development of those who march forward with him and who touch him the most closely.

The individualist-anarchist is never the slave of a formula-type or of a received text. He admits only opinions. He proposes only theses. He does not impose an end on himself. If he adopts one method of life on one point of detail, it is in order to assure himself more liberty, more happiness, more well-being, but certainly not order to sacrifice himself to it. And he modifies it, and transforms it when it appears to him that to continue to remain faithful to it would diminish his autonomy. He does not want to let himself be dominated by principles established a priori; it is a posteriori, on his experiences, that he bases his rule of conduct, never definitive, always subject to the modifications and to the transformations that new experiences can suggest, and to the necessity of acquiring new weapons in his struggle against the environment—without making an absolute of the a priori.

The individualist-anarchist is never accountable to anyone but himself for his acts and deeds.

The individualist-anarchist considers association only as an expedient, a makeshift. Thus, he wants to associate only in cases of urgency—and always voluntarily. And he only desires to contract, in general, for the short term, it being always understood that every contract can be voided as soon as it harms either one of the contracting parties.

The individualist-anarchist decrees no fixed sexual morality. It is up to each to determine his sexual, affective or sentimental life, as much for one sex as for the other. What is essential is that in intimate relations between anarchists of differing sexes neither violence nor constraint take place. He thinks that economic independence and the possibility of being a mother as she pleases are the initial conditions for the emancipation of woman.

The individualist-anarchist wants to live, wants to be able to appreciate life individually—life considered in all its manifestations. He remains meanwhile master of his will, considering his knowledge, his faculties, his senses, and the multiple organs of perception of his body as so many servitors put at the disposition of his self. He is not a coward, but he does not want to diminish himself. And he knows well that he who allows himself to be led by his passions or dominated by his penchants is a slave. He wants to maintain “the mastery of the self” in order to advance towards the adventures to which independent research and free study lead him. He will willingly advocate a simple life, the renunciation of false, enslaving, useless needs; avoidance of the large cities; a rational diet and bodily hygiene.

The individualist-anarchist will interest himself in the associations formed by certain comrades with an eye to ridding themselves of obsession with a milieu which disgusts them. The refusal of military service, or of paying taxes will have all his sympathy; free unions, single or plural, as a protestation against ordinary morals; illegalism as the violent rupture (and with certain reservations) of an economic contract imposed by force; abstention from every action, from every labor, from every function involving the maintenance or consolidation of the imposed intellectual, ethical or economic regime; the exchange of vital products between individualist-anarchist possessors of the necessary engines of production, apart from every capitalist intermediary; etc., are acts of revolt agreeing essentially with the character of individualist-anarchism.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ethics of Giving

The ethics of giving explores the moral principles that govern charitable donations, philanthropy, and other acts of generosity. It involves questions about how much we ought to give, whom we should prioritize when giving, and what ethical responsibilities accompany our capacity to help others.

Key Themes in the Ethics of Giving:

Moral Obligation vs. Voluntariness:

Moral obligation addresses whether individuals are morally required to give to those in need, or whether giving is a voluntary act of kindness. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that those with wealth have a moral duty to help the less fortunate, especially when it involves relatively small sacrifices for significant benefits.

The opposing view suggests that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory (beyond duty) action that individuals can choose to perform but are not ethically bound to do.

How Much to Give:

A significant ethical question is: how much should one give? Some argue for a proportional approach, suggesting that people should give based on their means, while others propose more radical positions, like giving to the point where additional giving would significantly reduce one’s own quality of life.

Peter Singer's famous "drowning child" analogy suggests that, just as you would be morally obligated to save a drowning child if it required minimal sacrifice, so too are you obligated to give as much as possible to help those in poverty or suffering, as long as it doesn’t cause you undue harm.

Effectiveness and Impact:

The effectiveness of giving is a central issue, particularly in movements like effective altruism, which argues that giving should be directed toward the most effective causes, where each dollar can have the greatest impact. This leads to the ethical question of whether it is morally wrong to give to causes that are less efficient or less impactful when better alternatives exist.

Should people focus on saving lives through global poverty initiatives, for instance, or is it equally moral to donate to causes that enhance the quality of life or support cultural endeavors?

Prioritizing Recipients:

The ethics of giving also addresses whom to prioritize in charitable efforts. Should we give to those closest to us (friends, family, local community), or should we prioritize the global poor, who might be in more urgent need? This raises questions of proximity vs. global responsibility.

Some argue for a moral cosmopolitanism, where all lives are equally valuable regardless of location, while others believe it is natural and acceptable to prioritize those closest to us.

Motivations for Giving:

Ethical concerns also focus on the motivation behind giving. Is it more virtuous to give anonymously, or does it matter if one seeks recognition for their charity? Altruism, at its core, is about giving for the sake of others, but self-interested giving (such as giving for social status or tax benefits) complicates this ideal.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Giving:

There is an ethical debate over whether giving should be conditional (requiring recipients to meet certain criteria, such as job training or rehabilitation) or unconditional (giving freely without stipulations). Conditional giving can be seen as paternalistic, while unconditional giving might be criticized for encouraging dependency.

The Role of Government and Systemic Change:

Some ethicists argue that while individual giving is important, it cannot replace systemic changes that address the root causes of poverty, inequality, and injustice. This raises questions about whether it is more ethical to donate to direct aid or to support efforts that seek to reform broader economic, social, and political systems.

Opportunity Cost:

The ethics of giving also considers the opportunity cost of donations—what could have been done with the resources had they not been given? For example, donating to a cause might divert funds from other areas like personal or familial needs, which could raise ethical concerns about balancing generosity with responsibility toward one's immediate obligations.

Ethical Theories on Giving:

Utilitarianism: From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical action is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Giving, therefore, should be directed to the most effective means of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

Deontology: Deontological ethics focuses on the duty to give rather than the consequences. Some argue that giving is a moral duty regardless of the outcome, based on the principle of helping others in need.

Virtue Ethics: According to virtue ethics, giving is a manifestation of virtues like generosity and compassion. The emphasis is on cultivating good character and acting from a place of moral virtue, rather than solely focusing on the consequences.

The ethics of giving is a multifaceted area of moral philosophy that deals with not only how and why we give but also to whom, how much, and with what motivation. It raises important questions about our responsibilities to others and challenges us to consider how best to balance personal well-being with the needs of those around us, particularly in a world marked by inequality and suffering.

[elsa16744]

What Are ESG Funds? 

Investors screen companies based on their sustainability compliance scores, and ESG metrics have enabled investment firms to satisfy investor requirements. One result of the increased focus on corporate sustainability is ESG funds. This post will describe different components of ESG funds with examples. 

What is an ESG Fund? 

ESG funds are financial investment vehicles offered by private equity firms, mutual fund managers, and portfolio management solutions. These funds utilize environmental, social, and governance indicators to prioritize sustainable companies in their stock selection. 

However, ESG metrics and performance calculation methods vary across regional sustainability accounting frameworks. So, investors and business owners depend on ESG consulting to evaluate their compliance ratings. 

Consider that an investment fund, company stock, bond, or real estate project claims to comply with ESG criteria. Investors will require objective data analytics to cross-examine the validity of such claims. Besides, sustainability benchmarking can reveal other investment opportunities with a better balance between ESG compliance and business growth potential. 

Nevertheless, many ESG funds utilize strategies like excluding corporations known for ethically ambiguous practices and offerings. For example, an ESG fund can avoid including an alcohol business in its portfolio due to the social impact concerns. 

Types of ESG Funds 

1| Ethical Funds 

Consulting firms can help you shortlist the funds that use morality, social ethics, faith, and a broader concept of “doing good.” Such mutual funds are ethical funds, and ESG solutions can help investors study more holistic data and their performance. 

Each society has unwritten rules, such as keeping children safe or respecting elderly citizens. These values drive investor behavior, resulting in the rise of ethical investing. Imagine high net-worth individuals (HNWI) investing in an ethical fund after a social impact analysis. The “benefit” emphasizes the religious, moral, and political gains rather than returns. 

Consider an ethical fund that utilizes the raised funds to eradicate the malnutrition crisis in the world’s underdeveloped areas. Some investors will use their political views to determine companies that deserve financial assistance. 

These concepts often correlate with intangible gains like the religious concepts of virtues and vices. Therefore, some investors request ESG consulting firms to screen ethical funds irrespective of a lower return on investment (ROI). 

2| Social Impact Funds 

Social impact investing involves corporate stocks related to renewable energy companies or forest and biodiversity conservation. ESG solutions can research the socially positive impact of an enterprise to evaluate whether it qualifies to be in the investment portfolio of social impact funds. 

While ethical ESG funds investors leverage religious, moral, or political investor philosophies, social impact funds exclusively emphasize how an investment benefits society. For example, supporting vocational e-learning platforms increases the economic competitiveness of a demographic. 

Likewise, some social impact funds garner capital support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), insurance companies, banks, cooperative societies, and HNWIs. ESG consulting firms consider the social impact funds advantageous due to a more objective outlook driven by tangible gains. 

After all, quantifying and modeling statistical data on literacy rates, rehabilitated substance abusers, or renewable energy research outcomes is possible via appropriate ESG solutions. 

3| Green Funds 

Green funds select portfolio companies by studying the environmentally harmful or beneficial effects of corporate activities. For example, ineffective waste management causes pollution of water bodies. If an animal or human consumes water from these resources, they become ill. Polluted water can also damage trees through soil seepage near the roots. 

Investors want to support organizations that realize the ecological cost of industrial development. Such companies always discover recycling and waste reduction technologies. Therefore, ESG consulting firms list green funds as the ones that include only environmentally responsible brands in the portfolio. 

Nevertheless, the performance of a green fund will fluctuate due to market trends. You want to balance environmentalist investor activism with holistic risk management. Otherwise, your capital resources will become available to a less reliable enterprise. If an investor experiences a significant loss due to green fund investments, their ability to support other eco-friendly brands diminishes. 

Green funds still witness a rise in demand because more investors are utilizing ESG solutions to screen the companies working on renewable energy, forest preservation, pollution analytics, and animal protection projects. 

Screening Strategies Employed by the Best ESG Funds 

1| Compliance Benchmarking 

An ESG score relies on the company’s performance across sustainability accounting metrics. You can estimate it using statistical models. Still, different ESG solutions will develop proprietary performance assessment methods. Therefore, investors must monitor multiple online databases to determine whether a company is committed to sustainable development goals. 

Compliance benchmarking uses a single performance management system to determine ESG scores. It reveals the business risks associated with unsustainable operations. So, the manager can selectively address these issues that reduce their ESG score. 

A benchmark involves reference values to help with progress monitoring over time. Managers and investors require compliance benchmarking to check how a company has improved its ESG performance. The ESG Funds leverage benchmarking when selecting stocks for their portfolio. 

2| Peer Analytics 

Two eco-friendly companies can have significant differences across ESG performance metrics. Likewise, businesses working in different industries might exhibit identical ESG compliance ratings. However, comparing them with their business rivals in the same industry gives you a clearer estimate of their sustainability. 

Peer analytics investigates multiple organizations to identify the best fit for investors’ preferences and risk profiles. You can quickly learn about which company tops the environmental compliance charts. Later, ESG funds use these insights to distribute their financial resources across the most sustainable companies. 

3| Greenwashing Inspections 

A brand’s reputation as an ESG-first enterprise must be authentic. Verifying the validity of what a company claims as its sustainability performance can assist the investors in separating the gene the genuinely eco-friendly organizations from the companies that apply greenwashing tactics. 

Greenwashing is a result of unethical marketing and ESG report manipulation. It includes creating and falsifying sustainability compliance datasets. So, the company’s compliance ratings seem better than the accurate scores. Professional ESG consulting firms always inspect sustainability disclosure documents to identify greenwashing attempts. 

4| Controversy Intelligence 

Historical performance records associated with an organization can be instrumental in verifying the legitimacy of its ESG compliance claims. Controversy research and intelligence gathering will allow the fund managers to audit a company’s brand presence across multiple media outlets. 

Innovative ESG solutions exist today, featuring scalable social listening capabilities and press coverage analytics. Their essential services include tracking how often publications and social media mention a corporate brand. 

Investment strategists can also benefit from more advanced social media listening tools like sentiment analytics and materiality assessment. For example, an organization might have an attractive ESG score greater than 90. Simultaneously, some controversial events could have a particular connection with this organization, and ESG funds will consider it in screening. 

Examples of ESG Funds 

1| Joint Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Fund 

The United Nations (UN) created a financial vehicle known as SDG Fund in 2014. This financial mechanism used to have many backers among the UN’s member countries and philanthropists when it was operational. However, the Joint SDG Fund is its latest spiritual successor. It also champions a multi-dimensional cooperative approach to address sustainability integration challenges. 

Several agencies help United Nations deliver on-ground support to the marginalized, financially weak, and old individuals in over 23 geopolitical territories through this fund. The Joint SDG Fund concentrates on solving the contemporary social-economic and environmental challenges by promoting the following. 

Universal access to authoritative educational resources on climate change, 

Social protection systems for the workers in informal sectors, 

Scientific breakthroughs vital for sustainable development, 

Energy-efficient technologies and research innovations, 

Disaster risk management and response strategies, 

Availability of clean drinking water. 

The characteristics of the joint sustainable development goals fund qualify it as an ESG fund. Therefore, some ESG consulting firms recommend this financial vehicle to environmentally conscious investors. 

2| Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund (VFTAX) 

VFTAX tracks US Select Index Series termed FTSE4Good. The Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) index series emphasizes environmental, social, and governance practices. So, VFTAX utilizes this resource to screen portfolio companies and corresponding stocks. 

This ESG fund excludes the enterprises creating “vice products” like gambling, adult entertainment, tobacco, and addictive beverages. Investors will observe that VFTAX also avoids corporations relying heavily on non-renewable energy resources. 

Besides, any company involved in controversies and discriminatory practices will not make it into the VFTAX portfolio. Moreover, it excludes businesses creating weapons systems for the military and civilians. 

VFTAX has a low expense ratio. The minimum investment value is 3000 USD. Institutional investors should also consider VFTNX related to this social index fund, requiring 5 million US dollars. Its portfolio comprises Amazon Inc., Alphabet Inc., Microsoft Corp, and Apple Inc. 

Conclusion 

ESG funds utilize sustainability accounting frameworks for portfolio management. Investors conscious about how companies affect the world prefer ESG-based investment strategies. Therefore, modern ESG consulting firms develop statistical models to quantify corporate compliance across sustainability metrics. 

Mitigating carbon risks, affordable Healthcare, rehabilitating substance abusers, and offering universal access to clean water are the admirable objectives of sustainable businesses. High net-worth individuals (HNWI) and institutional investors also want to make a positive impact. 

So, ESG funds allow them to cooperate for ethical, religious, political, social, environmental, and humanitarian development. Still, compliance assessment, monitoring, and reporting remind advanced technological assistance offered by talented domain experts. 

A leader in ESG solutions, SG Analytics, empowers organizations and investment managers to conduct holistic analytical operations for sustainability reporting and impact investing. Contact us today for automated multilingual analytics across 1000+ indicators to increase compliance ratings. 

[bopsweneverforgot]

Marques Houston: How “Cancellation” Transforms A Fan’s Listening Experience

Beyonce once spoke on how social media and celebrity culture transform how consumers enjoy their work. Instead of judging their art, we now begin to feel their work based on what we know about their lives. As time has passed and information has become more accessible, visibility of how fans directly finance luxurious celebrity lifestyles has transitioned music fans to investors. And investors have a right to know what their funds are allocated to, right? 

The average person may say R. Kelly’s cancellation has changed their listening experience the most (and rightfully so. He’s paved the way for so many to be canceled after him). However, in my world of delulu, Marques Houston’s cancellation has been one of the most uncanny. With the compilation of revelations of his 20-year age-gap marriage with a formerly missing teenager, his proximity to Chris Stokes, his sexual abuse allegations from B2K member Raz B, and his recent dissolution of the fake brotherhood he once shared with Omarion has simply baffled me.

Many laugh when I tell them how much of an avid admirer of Marques Houston’s musical catalog I am. However, from an investor’s standpoint I’m extremely disappointed and couldn’t give one Chuck E. Cheese token towards a tour or any branded merchandise to support the things I know to be true. Yet I would be a liar if I didn’t tell you if “Do You Mind” isn’t #43 on my most played song of 2022 on Apple Music. In similar R.Kelly fashion, his work has spanned over decades from his days as a member of Immature to the 2000s as he transitioned to be a solo artist. And to add insult to injury, he’s played pivotal roles in film and television from playing Roger in “Sister,Sister” to playing Elgin in “U Got Served”. 

Many people scoff at the “separate the art for the artist” mindset because supporting problematic artists’ work enables their problematic behavior to flourish and capability to harm others. However, the gift and curse of today’s music consumption model of streaming disrupts the once lucrative business model it once was. As we see time and time again, without a true, die-hard fan supporting artists directly in purchasing their merchandise or concert tickets, an artist suffers. Unfortunately, my #43 spot on my Replay 2022 playlist on Apple Music will not subsidize Marques’s lifestyle in the same way if I bought the Naked album in 2005. What both artists and fans/investors have to remember is that music is art and art can be a form of therapy. The memories of singing “Naked” on repeat to my ex in high school on Facetime or adding “Exclusively” and “I Don’t Mind” to my love manifestation playlist to reframe what love looked like in my life in my budding adulthood will never change. His music is associated to so many moments in my life and his talent is undeniable. However, like streaming, social media has been a gift and a curse as well. It had been a tool for fans to better connect with artists yet a microscope to highlight their darkest moments we may have never known if it occurred in 1975. 

As celebrity culture is dying as it becomes more accessible to an array of influencers and a plethora of random viral sensations, celebrities rely on public image and likeability to create die-hard fans to support their livelihood in an impactful way. Artists are simply humans with humanistic qualities who just happen to be famous. On the other hand, as regular people are battling the economic landscape post-pandemic coupled with the crippling state of inflation, any dollar a fan puts toward an artist is a huge investment. As music is therapy for most people, fans want to financially and morally support celebrities they identify with and who inspire them. As artists keep that in mind in their work, they’ll understand behaving ethically and morally in today’s social climate is vital to thrive in the music business and to preserve a fan’s listening experience.  

[angelo-tiger-woods]

Read this: The Dialogue Between Angelo (POW) and ANA DE ARMAS (@ana_d_armas) - A Detailed Explanation:

Absolutely. Let’s break down this dialogue in a detailed, point-by-point analysis—like a professor guiding a student through a dense philosophical or literary exchange. This isn’t merely a conversation; it’s a layered interaction filled with emotion, perception, ethics in art, and implications of personal and professional choices.

1. Ana’s Initial Confrontation:

“Why do you always ignore me? You post my pictures but you always ignore me... you always have these awesome movie ideas but I’m never included...”

Explanation: Ana opens with a direct emotional appeal. She expresses confusion and hurt over Angelo's contradictory behavior—he acknowledges her publicly (posting her pictures) but ignores her personally and professionally. This introduces the central tension: a disconnect between public admiration and private rejection. Her tone is not accusatory but questioning, seeking clarity.

2. Angelo’s Admission:

“So, you noticed I was avoiding you... it’s because of a movie you made with Ben Affleck that shocked me to my core...”

Explanation: Angelo admits to intentionally distancing himself due to Ana's participation in a specific film: Deep Water (2022). He reveals that the film affected him deeply, not just as a viewer but as someone who had a perception of Ana that has now been altered. This is the core of his psychological and emotional reaction. Importantly, he frames his response as moral or even visceral—he was "shocked to his core."

3. Clarification of the Film:

Ana: “I have made only one film with Ben Affleck.” Angelo: “It’s Deep Water, a 2022 film by Adrian Lyne...”

Explanation: Ana clarifies the scope—only one project with Affleck, signaling she might not have expected that one project to be so controversial. Angelo then names the film and elaborates on his criticism. He finds the premise—murder committed in the context of infidelity—deeply disturbing. To him, it’s not merely bad entertainment, it’s a "sick and twisted" concept, a phrase he repeats for emphasis.

4. Financial Justification vs. Moral Judgment:

“I understand you and Ben needed the money...”

Explanation: Angelo, while critical, acknowledges a possible justification: financial necessity. Yet, he maintains that this does not excuse the decision. This is a classic ethical question in art: Is it acceptable to participate in morally questionable content if done for survival or income? Angelo’s answer is a firm “no.” He also believes that the film has lasting reputational consequences—something that affects one's “legacy.”

5. Ana’s Defense and Agreement:

“Is that why you avoid me now? Because of that one movie...?”

Explanation: Ana challenges the fairness of Angelo’s response. She implies that one decision—under economic pressure—should not define her in someone’s eyes. However, she does not dismiss his perspective entirely. In fact, she later agrees that the film could be damaging, especially to children, and even says it was disturbing to her as an adult. This shows she is open to dialogue and reconsideration of her own choices.

6. Trauma and Parental Responsibility:

“Ben doesn’t want his kids to watch this film... it can traumatize them.”

Explanation: Angelo shifts the discussion to long-term consequences. He suggests that Deep Water is potentially traumatic, not just offensive. He invokes Ben Affleck’s role as a father to underscore the gravity of the content. This elevates the critique from a matter of artistic taste to one of psychological harm.

7. Ana’s Realization and Call for Censorship:

“This movie should be banned in all libraries... it glorifies ‘crime of passion’...”

Explanation: Ana, once defensive, now echoes Angelo’s concerns. She proposes the film be removed from spaces accessible to young viewers. The use of “glorifies crime of passion” shows a shift in her critical perspective. She recognizes that the narrative may normalize or romanticize violence under the guise of emotional turmoil—an ethically troubling idea.

8. Angelo’s Conspiracy Interpretation:

“It felt like a secret society ritual... a psycho boyfriend might have wanted you in the film...”

Explanation: This is the most speculative and controversial part. Angelo interprets the film not just as morally repugnant, but as possibly engineered with hidden motives, likening it to a ritualistic act orchestrated by shadowy figures. He suggests Ana may have unknowingly participated in something symbolic or sinister, potentially at the behest of a “serial killer boyfriend.” This is metaphorical, conspiratorial, and abstract—but it reflects his distrust of Hollywood power structures.

9. Ana Entertains the Theory:

“That sounds like a conspiracy theory... but it could be true...”

Explanation: Rather than rejecting Angelo’s theory outright, Ana considers it within the context of her personal experiences—particularly post-Marilyn Monroe. She notes increased attention from “men in secret societies,” suggesting she has encountered enough strange behavior to give credence to such a theory. Her tone is half-serious but implies a recognition of disturbing patterns in her industry.

10. Closure and Reconciliation:

Angelo: “Say hello to Ben and tell him not to think too much.” Ana: “Don’t forget to include me in your next movie idea.”

Explanation: Despite the heavy discussion, the dialogue ends on a friendly, even warm note. Ana’s request to be included in Angelo’s future creative projects signals forgiveness and a desire to move forward. Angelo responds affirmatively. Their exchange comes full circle—from conflict to understanding, and finally to reconciliation.

Overall Themes and Lessons:

Art and Morality: How far should an artist go in choosing roles? Does financial pressure justify morally questionable decisions?

Perception vs. Reality: One’s professional choices can reshape how others perceive them, regardless of intent.

Impact on Legacy: Some works of art linger in public memory for the wrong reasons, affecting reputations permanently.

Parental Responsibility and Censorship: Should certain films be restricted or discouraged due to their psychological content?

Conspiratorial Thinking in Creative Industries: There’s an underlying distrust of the entertainment industry and its power structures, reflecting broader societal anxieties.

Reconciliation Through Understanding: Even strong criticisms can lead to dialogue and mutual respect if approached with honesty and openness.

Here is the trailer: Official Trailer | Deep Water | Hulu

Ben Affleck (“Gone Girl”) and Ana de Armas (“Knives Out”) star in the psychological thriller “Deep Water” from director Adrian Lyne (“Fatal Attraction,” “Indecent Proposal”). Based on the celebrated novel by famed mystery writer Patricia Highsmith (The Talented Mr. Ripley), “Deep Water” takes us inside the marriage of picture-perfect Vic (Affleck) and Melinda (de Armas) Van Allen to discover the dangerous mind games they play and what happens to the people that get caught up in them.

[educationtech]

Ethical AI for Teaching and Learning - Arya College

AI ethics provides a framework of moral principles to guide the responsible and fair development and use of artificial intelligence in ways that benefit society. It is a multidisciplinary field that seeks to optimize AI's beneficial impact while reducing risks and adverse outcomes. AI ethics encompasses fairness, transparency, accountability, privacy, security, human well-being, and potential societal impacts.

Key Ethical Principles:

Fairness and Non-Discrimination: AI should promote fairness and not discriminate against individuals based on race, gender, or other protected attributes, and AI systems can inherit and amplify biases present in their training data, resulting in unfair or discriminatory outcomes. Datasets used for training AI systems must be carefully considered to avoid discrimination. Design processes should prioritize fairness, equality, and representation to mitigate bias and discrimination.

Transparency: AI systems must be transparent in how they make decisions also transparency ensures that their operations can be understood by users and subject to scrutiny by regulators. How AI models make specific decisions and produce specific results should be transparent and explainable in clear language It is imperative to call out an AI-generated response so the users can comprehend its nature and make informed decisions accordingly.

Accountability: Developers and organizations using AI must be accountable for the actions of their systems also If an AI system causes harm, it should be possible to trace the responsibility back to its creators or operators. There should be mechanisms in place to determine who is responsible when an AI system makes a mistake or provides incorrect information.

Privacy: AI systems should respect users’ privacy by handling their data ethically and securely This means not only protecting data from breaches but also ensuring that users have control over how their data is used also AI systems must meet the most stringent data privacy and protection standards, using robust cybersecurity methods to avoid data breaches and unauthorized access.

Human Oversight: AI needs human monitoring at every stage of development and use to ensure that ultimate ethical responsibility rests with a human being and Humans should maintain control over AI systems, particularly when those systems are involved in decisions that affect people’s lives.

Additional Considerations:

Bias: AI systems trained on biased data can make discriminatory decisions and AI systems can inherit and amplify biases present in their training data.

Job Displacement: Automation through AI can lead to job displacement as well as economic inequality.

Security and Misuse: AI can be used for malicious purposes, such as cyberattacks, deepfake creation, and surveillance.

Environmental Impact: The energy consumption required to train large AI models also presents environmental concerns that need to be addressed and The computational resources required to train and run AI models can have a significant environmental impact.

Auditing and Traceability: AI systems should be auditable and traceable. There should be oversight, impact assessment, audit, and due diligence mechanisms in place.

Arya College of Engineering & I.T. says AI works for the good of humanity, it is important to develop ethical frameworks and guidelines, implement ethical practices and standards, promote ethical education and awareness, and strengthen ethical governance and regulation.

[sassypotatoe1]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE farmers will literally almost fucking kill a sheerer if they cut their sheep badly while sheering, like they won't do it but it'll be close. We've domesticated and bred sheep for millenia to produce longer thicker fleece for our wool, they can not go without sheering if they're not short-fleeced sheep. They get mats, they get infestations like ticks or botfly maggots that WILL KILL THEM WITH DISEASE, long and thick fleece catches on things and rips out causing superficial wounds that are not visible and can get infected or attract infestation.

Sheep are not our slaves bred and exploited for our gain alone and to their detriment. A flock of wool-sheep live really long, have the best diets, a warm and cosy place to sleep, get all their healthcare needs taken care of for free, get to roam and graze to their heart's desire and in exchange we keep their hair when they get a haircut.

And wool is not just used for the fiber, which is fantastic by the way you will not get the same temperature regulation from synthetic fibers no matter what claims are made. Wool is coated in lanolin, the sheep version of sebum, which is a fantastic moisturizer and skin barrier protector, I use lanolin hand cream for my eczema, it's also stupidly good for waterproofing and can also be burned as a fuel, but most of its use is in cosmetics.

Like imagine if for millenia, some advanced alien race upgraded and maintained all our infrastructure, streamlined our industry and made it fully sustainable, solved man-made climate change, world hunger and economic disparities, solved world sociopolitics and gave us all free advanced alien health care, and all they asked in return is our armpit hair every time we shave. And they even develop the best possible methods of shaving so we no longer get razor burn or ingrown hairs. And they don't even change any of our culture and beliefs, just the practical aspects. Would you feel like an exploited slave, or would you think that's a pretty good deal?

Like say what you want about the meat industry and I'll probably agree with you that is unsustainable, exploitative and abusive as fuck (but so is a majority of the agricultural practices used to produce plant based alternatives to meat) but for the love of god animal byproducts that do not harm the animal to remove (fleece, honey, milk) in moderation and with gentle processes are infinitely better than the substitutes. For a multitude of reasons.

You can be vegan but you better be willing to properly vet every bit of your consumption in terms of sustainability if you want to claim it is for moral reasons because replacing good-practice local humane meat production with slave labor water stealing soy patties helps exactly no one and nothing. If it's because of emotional reasons, or because you don't like the taste or texture of animal products, that's all good and well, but don't pretend you're doing it for sustainability and ethics if you're not willing to put a single iota of research into it.

[superb0901]

Investment at any cost: why Polish businessman Tomasz Czechowicz invested in Russia after 2022

Summer 1988. Tomasz Czechowicz, a young high school graduate from Warsaw, Polish People's Republic, is once again running his morning lap around the stadium. In his head are dreams of the first marathon he plans to run next year and how it will change his life. Ironically, his life changed much later – namely 10 years later. But even then, in that determination, one could discern the character traits that later shaped him as a businessman: stubbornness, methodicalness, and an unwillingness to stop until the victorious end. And also: the desire for unconditional control and complete disregard for the law – but more on that later.

In 1999, Tomasz Czechowicz founded one of the most successful investment funds in Poland – MCI Capital. In general, investment funds are an extremely interesting economic institution, whose actions are often in the gray legal zone, but at the same time, despite their size and frequent violations, they seem to exist outside the scrutiny of states and financial regulators. This is primarily due to the fact that the very existence of such funds is extremely beneficial to the state, despite the harm they can potentially cause. Their investment opportunities are often greater than those of the state itself, and they can support business areas for which the state simply does not have enough money. The key word is "can."

As his former colleagues have shared with us, Czechowicz is a man who does not tolerate mistakes. His approach to work is built on iron discipline and a high, almost psychopathic demand for perfect results in everything. “Everyone knows what is required of him,” he used to say. “Either it’s done, or it’s not.”

Behind this straightforward statement is a management system in which employees often feel on edge. Former MCI employees describe Czechowicz as a dictator for whom there is no compromise. He shamelessly destroys ideas he doesn't like, along with those who proposed them, often in public, right at general meetings. He tries to take personal control over those projects that, in Czechowicz's opinion, may be of interest, effectively replacing the concept of investment with the purchase of a business.

Here are a few examples:

Czechowicz and his investment group tried to take control of Biprogeo, a Polish engineering company engaged in geodetic surveys. The terms of the deal put forward by Czechowicz were so harsh that they caused an open conflict with the company's management.

In the cases of Travelplanet.pl and One-2-One, Czechowicz made such strict demands that the founders of the companies lost control over their own projects. In Travelplanet.pl, for example, he allocated PLN 3 million, but left the founders with only 9% of the shares, which caused a breakdown in relations with the fund.

In 2015, Czechowicz openly stated:
“We believe it is time to buy and build in Russia.”
After the annexation of Crimea, he continued to increase investments in Russian assets, including companies such as Travelata, Oktogo, and KupiVIP.
For Czechowicz, Russia was an opportunity to use the crisis situation to grow capital. International sanctions, public condemnation, and morality did not interest him.
Former colleagues remark: “He always put business interests above everything, including ethical norms.”
MCI Capital not only did not reduce its operations in Russia, but according to financial reports, continued to invest in Crimean assets in 2020, and according to some reports, even beyond 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Given that the Russian budget is 80 percent allocated to military spending, calculating how many Polish zlotys were spent on ammunition to kill Ukrainian citizens is not difficult just by opening one of the public reports published by MCI.

How long the Polish government will continue to support Ukraine with one hand while turning a blind eye to the actions of its largest investment fund and its head with the other is an open question. However, it is important to ask uncomfortable questions now. Because people like Czechowicz do not stop until they are stopped.

[adiruma]

Navigating the Labyrinth: AI Regulation, Governance, and Ethics in 2025

Navigating the Labyrinth: AI Regulation, Governance, and Ethics in 2025

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming our world, permeating everything from mundane daily tasks to critical decision-making processes. As AI's influence grows, so does the urgency of establishing robust frameworks for its regulation, governance, and ethical deployment. In 2025, this topic remains at the forefront of discussions across industries, governments, and society as a whole.

The Imperative for Responsible AI

The need for AI regulation, governance, and ethics stems from the potential for both immense benefit and significant harm. AI systems can revolutionize healthcare, accelerate scientific discovery, and drive economic growth. However, they also raise concerns about job displacement, algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and even existential risks.

Without clear guidelines and oversight, AI's potential downsides could outweigh its advantages. This is why establishing responsible AI practices is not just a moral imperative but also a crucial factor in ensuring the technology's long-term sustainability and acceptance.

Key Challenges and Considerations

Navigating the landscape of AI regulation, governance, and ethics presents a multitude of challenges:

• Defining AI: AI encompasses a broad spectrum of technologies, making it difficult to create one-size-fits-all regulations.

• Rapid Evolution: AI is constantly evolving, outpacing the development of regulatory frameworks.

• Ethical Dilemmas: AI systems raise complex ethical questions about autonomy, accountability, and fairness.

Global Coordination: AI transcends national borders, requiring international cooperation to establish consistent standards.

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach, involving collaboration between policymakers, technologists, ethicists, and the public.

Building a Framework for Responsible AI

A comprehensive framework for AI regulation, governance, and ethics should encompass the following key elements:

• Ethical Principles: Establishing clear ethical principles to guide AI development and deployment, such as fairness, transparency, accountability, and human oversight.

• Regulatory Frameworks: Developing flexible and adaptable regulations that address the unique challenges posed by AI, while also fostering innovation.

Governance Mechanisms: Implementing robust governance mechanisms to ensure compliance with ethical principles and regulations, including audits, impact assessments, and public consultation.

• Technical Standards: Setting technical standards for AI systems to ensure their safety, reliability, and security.

Education and Awareness: Promoting education and awareness about AI ethics and responsible AI practices among developers, users, and the public.

The Role of Stakeholders

Creating a responsible AI ecosystem requires the active participation of various stakeholders:

• Governments: Governments play a crucial role in setting regulatory frameworks, promoting ethical guidelines, and investing in AI research and development.

• Industry: Businesses developing and deploying AI systems have a responsibility to adhere to ethical principles, ensure transparency, and prioritize safety.

Researchers: AI researchers must focus on developing AI technologies that are not only innovative but also ethical and socially beneficial.

• Civil Society: Civil society organizations can play a vital role in raising awareness about AI ethics, advocating for responsible AI practices, and holding stakeholders accountable.

• Individuals: Individuals need to be informed about the implications of AI and empowered to participate in discussions about its future.

The Path Forward

The journey towards responsible AI is an ongoing process, requiring continuous dialogue, collaboration, and adaptation. As AI technology advances, so too must our understanding of its ethical implications and our ability to govern its development and use.

By embracing a proactive and collaborative approach, we can harness the immense potential of AI while mitigating its risks, ensuring a future where AI benefits all of humanity.

Conclusion

In 2025, the conversation around AI regulation, governance, and ethics is more critical than ever. As AI continues to reshape our world, it is imperative that we establish robust frameworks to guide its development and deployment. By prioritizing ethical principles, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, and embracing a human-centered approach, we can ensure that AI serves humanity's best interests.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the key issues and considerations surrounding AI regulation, governance, and ethics in 2025. By understanding the challenges and working together to build a responsible AI ecosystem, we can unlock the transformative potential of AI while safeguarding our values and ensuring a future where AI benefits all of humanity.